2nd Amendment - an "individual" right?

imported post

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/beat-the-high-c.html

There ya' go - a poll with which to reflect YOUR opinion. Pete

imported post

I believe its not just individual right, its a right of all americans as a whole

imported post

95% vote yes, 4% vote no, and 1% don't know. 3822 people have voted so far.

Interesting initial results.

imported post

The ANTI-gun factions are trying to portray the 2nd Amendment as a collective right that exists only to allow us to serve in the National Guard or a state-sponsored militia, as opposed to being an "individual" right, for ALL citizens.

That's part of what the upcoming Supreme Court decision will - hopefully - clarify. Pete

imported post

Its a silly argument--collective rights.

One can't claim the people in aggregate are worth defending unless the individuals who make up the aggregate are worth defending.

I wonder if anyone will correct the poll question about 2A giving the RKBA.

imported post

That's the problem with the MSM - they think that the Bill of Rights give certain rights to citizens and given their mostly leftist educations they don't understand that the Bill of Rights simply protects natural rights from government intrusion.


I would love to see a poll question such as: Does the 1st Amendment give members of the MSM the right to say stupid, uneducated things about the Bill of Rights.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

SNIP I would love to see a poll question such as: Does the 1st Amendment give members of the MSM the right to say stupid, uneducated things about the Bill of Rights.

Click to expand...

:lol:

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Its a silly argument--collective rights.

One can't claim the people in aggregate are worth defending unless the individuals who make up the aggregate are worth defending.

I wonder if anyone will correct the poll question about 2A giving the RKBA.

Click to expand...

It's also silly because the Bill of Rights are ALL individual rights.

imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:

It's also silly because the Bill of Rights are ALL individual rights.

Click to expand...

+1


Well, maybe excepting that one about Congress making a law respecting establishment of religion. And that one about powers retained by the people--#10.

imported post

I also wonder why anyone would think it would be necessary to explicitly state a right to have one's military be armed. "Today we have a landmark Supreme Court case where we will see... if the Marines are allowed to carry guns into combat."

imported post

The bill of rights was not written to protect collective rights, it was written to protect the rights the people already had from government intrusion. Look where else the word "people" is used (first, second, fourth, fifth amendments. You don't see anybody saying that this refers to some BS collective right because they would be quickly discredited!

There was at least one draft of the second amendment introduced at the time which uses the phrase "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people!".

In any case, all but a few states protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in some kind of language. So the right to keep and bear arms is protected at the state and national level.

imported post

swatpro911 wrote:

I believe its not just individual right, its a right of all americans as a whole

Click to expand...

Leave it to me to interject.

I assume you meant to say, "I believe it's not just an individual right, it's a right of all Americans as a whole."

In my interpretation of the statement, you're saying you subscribe to both an individual and a collectivist view of the right. As recently as a year or two ago, I was under the mistaken belief that the 2A is either a collective right or a right of the general populace. This was somewhat driven by the 9th circuits rulings on cases here in California.

I think the reason that there is this 'collective' right distortion, is attributable to both the founding fathers inability to foresee an overreaching Federal government and the legislators and judiciaryspropensity for incrementalism.

These rights that are enumerated in the bill of rights are not set forth as only for "Americans' but for anyone who is in jurisdiction of the United States. When someone is a vistor or a resident alien, they have the same right to speech as we are. And I believe it doesnt stop there... Since there are no 'exceptions' in the application and excersize of rights, each individual must have the same right and same ability to excersize it.

I believe there would be little discussion of 'collective rights' if the wording to the second was properly interpreted as the following;

A well equiped Militia (armed populace) being necessary to the security of free States, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be invalidated by law or decree.

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

These rights that are enumerated in the bill of rights are not set forth as only for "Americans' but for anyone who is in jurisdiction of the United States.

Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Independence:

"... We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable[sic]^1 rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;..."

^1. My reference says, "The phrase is frequently misquoted 'inalienable.'"

Click to expand...

...nothing about 'jurisdiction' (though I grant the practicality of your argument) as these 'certain unalienable' Rights are enumerated in the BoR.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

ConditionThree wrote:

These rights that are enumerated in the bill of rights are not set forth as only for "Americans' but for anyone who is in jurisdiction of the United States.

Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Independence:

"... We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable[sic]^1 rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;..."

^1. My reference says, "The phrase is frequently misquoted 'inalienable.'"

Click to expand...

...nothing about 'jurisdiction' (though I grant the practicality of your argument) as these 'certain unalienable' Rights are enumerated in the BoR.

Click to expand...

Yes,my use of the word'jurisdiction' is an acknowledgement that the bill of rights can only be effectly applied where the Constitution is the law of the land. By no means was it an indication that rights were statutorially limited.

imported post

Do you remember diagramming? I think it is self explanatory.

imported post

Uniform Militia Acts of 1792

Called for,

--enrollment of “every able-bodied white male citizen” between 18 and 45,
--organization into individual state units
--militiamen provide own “arms, munitions,

This is what they ment by a Militia

imported post

Collectivism is the real problem. Too many people view themselves as part of society instead of an individual. This is comforting to some, as they can blame society instead of taking responsibility for themselves.

I don't accept the collectivist view. I alone am responsible for my failures and successes alike. I owe nothing to society, and society owes me nothing.

All rights exist regardless of the existance of any other person or statute. Rights belong to individuals. Collectives only can do what the individuals allow - priviledges.

imported post

Apparently not these people.

imported post

This poll question is terribly flawed. The way this poll question is framed, the only correct answer is NO (although I answered "yes.")

The Second Amendment does NOT give individuals the right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights simply enumerates the rights of individuals. Because it is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, it should exist whether it is written down or not.

imported post

I still like saying it's collectively an individual right